Skip to main content

About your Search

20121201
20121231
Search Results 0 to 1 of about 2
in 1876 and that was u.s. versus cruickshank, which rose out of the horrible massacre, one of the worst in the reconstruction. , with the whole war, blacks had tried to defend themselves in louisiana and were attacked by white crowds and the federal government attempted to prosecute the attackers on the grounds that they had deprived the blacks who were killed -- >> host: mna type issue. >> guest: didn't find that was the case. at that time we don't see any racial motivation at all to deprive blacks of their very specifically. in a kind of a side, the ruling said that the right to keep and bear arms in the second amendment was not a right granted by the constitution. it was a preexisting right. so if there is any application that courts later extended that if it applied to anybody, who is the federal government. so it's a limitation on federal governments to tell certain classes. >> host: that's how most of the bill of rights is interpreted. but it only applied to the federal government unless specifically incorporated to the states. >> we didn't get on the second amendment until 2010 f
in a ruling in 1876. that was u.s. versus cookshank, which arose out of a horrible massacre. one of the worst in the reconstruction period, where a whole -- hundreds or more, blacks, had tried to defend themselves in louisiana, and were attacked by a white crowd, and the federal government attempted to prosecute the attackers. on the grounds they had deprived the blacks who were killed of their right -- >> amend. >> guest: -- the supreme court didn't find that was the case. it said at that time we don't see there was any racial motivation at all here to deprive blacks of their rights specifically, and in a kind of aside, the ruling said that the right to keep and bear arms in the second amendment was not a right granted by the constitution. it was a preexisting right. and so if there was any application, courts alert extended from that to say if it was depriving anybody, it was the federal government. so i was a limitation on the federal government. >> host: that's how most of the bill of rights is interpreted by the courts. only applied the federal government unless it was specifically inco
Search Results 0 to 1 of about 2